America under President Trump

OftenWrong · February 5, 2017

4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

That is very encouraging. They still have 170 million people to take care of in a disappearing river delta one-tenth the size of Quebec. Elsewhere, e.g. sub-Saharan Africa, the reproductive news is not so good.

Or in Newfoundland.

OftenWrong · February 5, 2017

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

Judging by the outcry Trump has created during these two weeks and the two months before after he was elected one would be excused to think he has declared himself a dictator who has cancelled all future elections and has declared himself a president forever.

Only that kind of belief makes sense to the ferocity of the protests he has caused. As if there is not a next time.

I think the excessive media hyperbole is a security risk. Terrorists are watching the spectacle of a divided USA that honours insubordination and are thinking, "Now's our chance."

kimmy · February 5, 2017

37 minutes ago, Argus said:

Or, for another example, the way a very, very few transgendered people wanted to have laws letting them go into opposite public bathrooms and changing rooms because the focal point of all their efforts.

I think you have that backwards. Trans people have been discretely using opposite public restrooms for decades with extremely minimal impact on anyone. But in 2016, in response to nothing at all, the North Carolina Republicans decided to make a law against it anyway.

Their law is utterly unenforceable, and doesn't even prescribe penalties in the unlikely event that somebody somehow figures out how to enforce it. All it did was manage to create a bunch of hype and hysteria over a menace that didn't even exist. It doesn't make any cis-gendered person safer... the hysteria the law created did manage to make at least one cis-gendered person less safe, as a genetically female woman got attacked in a restroom because some redneck chicks thought she might be a dude.

And while the law became infamously known as "the bathroom bill", it actually contained a lot of stuff that didn't relate to bathrooms at all. It contained provisions banning municipalities from implementing other anti-discrimination measures. It prevents municipalities from implementing minimum wage laws. It prevented people from suing for discrimination-- later overturned. It prevented municipalities from not hiring contractors with discriminatory practices. There was a considerable amount of stuff aimed at making sure that municipalities couldn't set employment standards that exceeded the state employment standards, whether it be in wages, hours, sick leave, or anti-discrimination protection. It's somewhat Orwellian that this generalized attack on worker protections became known as "the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act".

4 hours ago, Argus said:

When it comes to important things, like, say, freedom of speech, well, they don't care. It's the unimportant things which obsess them.

The freedom of speech? When was that in jeopardy? The freedom of speech is doing fine.

The rights of gay people or trans people aren't on quite as stable of ground as the right to free speech. Especially in some parts of the US, where lawmakers are constantly on the attack. That's why the protests. You can ask "well it only affects a small portion of the population so why is it a big deal?" but to me the idea that it's ok to attack people if you pick a vulnerable enough target doesn't sit well.

-k

kimmy · February 5, 2017

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I think the excessive media hyperbole is a security risk. Terrorists are watching the spectacle of a divided USA that honours insubordination and are thinking, "Now's our chance."

I see... so if there's a terror attack, it's "the left's" fault because they wouldn't rally behind the Great Orange Leader?

-k

Hal 9000 · February 5, 2017

1 hour ago, kimmy said:

I see... so if there's a terror attack, it's "the left's" fault because they wouldn't rally behind the Great Orange Leader?

-k

When people talk of things that make the west more safe or less safe, i doesn't take a lot of common sense to know that we are less safe when the islamic world sees so much divide between the liberals and Trump.

kimmy · February 5, 2017

3 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

When people talk of things that make the west more safe or less safe, i doesn't take a lot of common sense to know that we are less safe when the islamic world sees so much divide between the liberals and Trump.

hmm. They should put up billboards, like the Smokey The Bear ones.

"Only YOU can prevent terror attacks! SUPPORT TRUMP!" but maybe with Sean Hannity pointing at the viewer, instead of Smokey.

-k

Hal 9000 · February 5, 2017

3 minutes ago, kimmy said:

hmm. They should put up billboards, like the Smokey The Bear ones.

"Only YOU can prevent terror attacks! SUPPORT TRUMP!" but maybe with Sean Hannity pointing at the viewer, instead of Smokey.

-k

Maybe they should. Or, maybe the left should just relax for a minute and see what happens. It only takes an IQ of about 57 to know that all this infighting is hurting the US and every other western nation.

kimmy · February 5, 2017

3 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Maybe they should. Or, maybe the left should just relax for a minute and see what happens. It only takes an IQ of about 57 to know that all this infighting is hurting the US and every other western nation.

Infighting is now a permanent feature of United States politics. It has been this way since at least the mid-1990s and hasn't stopped since. The notion that this is some new crisis is quite funny.

-k

betsy · February 5, 2017

On 2/2/2017 at 5:32 PM, marcus said:

Your interpretation is that it was lawful. Her interpretation is that it was unlawful.

“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Acting Attorney General Sally Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers, CNN first reported. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

Of course, this was a political move, but what she did was not against the law. She is not required to accept whatever the president says.

The problem with some liberal/progressive judges, they read into the Constitution and twist it to fit the liberal narrative.

Since when is it unlawful to practice the sovereignty of a nation? Look at all the meddling happening from all foreign countries all over the world!

Quote

The United States is a sovereign nation. Sovereignty is a simple idea: the United States is an independent nation, governed by the American people, that controls its own affairs. The American people adopted the Constitution and created the government. They elect their representatives and make their own laws.

The Founding Fathers understood that if America does not have sovereignty, it does not have independence. If a foreign power can tell America “what we shall do, and what we shall not do,” George Washington once wrote to Alexander Hamilton

http://www.heritage.org/report/why-does-sovereignty-matter-america

Edited February 5, 2017 by betsy

betsy · February 5, 2017

5 hours ago, kimmy said:

The freedom of speech? When was that in jeopardy? The freedom of speech is doing fine.

Freedom of speech is not doing fine. When protest groups can dictate what speakers can speak in public venues, you don't have freedom of speech.

Freedom of choice is not doing fine. When protest groups (and certain authorities) can dictate what people must not listen to, you don't have the freedom to choose.

We have the same problem in Canada.

betsy · February 5, 2017

5 hours ago, kimmy said:

I see... so if there's a terror attack, it's "the left's" fault because they wouldn't rally behind the Great Orange Leader?

-k

Yes. Because they couldn't get over losing to Trump.

And they know, Trump really does what he said he'd do.

The leftists are so incensed that they've really gone bonkers:

Quote

Sarah Silverman calls for coup to oust Donald Trump

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/sarah-silverman-calls-coup-oust-donald-trump/

Edited February 5, 2017 by betsy

kimmy · February 5, 2017

1 minute ago, betsy said:

Freedom of speech is not doing fine. When protest groups can dictate what speakers can speak in public venues, you don't have freedom of speech.

You can say whatever you wish, but nobody is required to provide you a venue.

1 minute ago, betsy said:

Freedom of choice is not doing fine. When protest groups (and certain authorities) can dictate what people must not listen to, you don't have the freedom to choose.

Example? When did a protest group ever accomplish that, aside from the Moral Majority getting music and TV shows yanked?

-k

kimmy · February 5, 2017

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

Yes. Because they couldn't get over losing to Trump.

And they know, Trump really does what he said he'd do.

...and this will cause Terror Attacks, because of ...reasons?

-k

?Impact · February 5, 2017

5 minutes ago, betsy said:

Freedom of speech is not doing fine. When protest groups can dictate what speakers can speak in public venues, you don't have freedom of speech.

Protest groups are free to express their opinion, and venue organizers are free to listen to them or not. Free speech is not one way.

Do protest groups get co-opted by others who want to spread illegal acts or violence? Yes, this does happen on occasion, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the protest group.

betsy · February 5, 2017

1 minute ago, kimmy said:

You can say whatever you wish, but nobody is required to provide you a venue.

Example? When did a protest group ever accomplish that, aside from the Moral Majority getting music and TV shows yanked?

-k

When speakers were invited to speak at some venues or universities. Like Ann Coulter. It was cancelled.

Quote

Ann Coulter's speech in Ottawa cancelled

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ann-coulters-speech-in-ottawa-cancelled/article4352616/

There is a difference between peaceful protests and protests that can impose what it wants.

betsy · February 5, 2017

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Protest groups are free to express their opinion, and venue organizers are free to listen to them or not. Free speech is not one way.

Do protest groups get co-opted by others who want to spread illegal acts or violence? Yes, this does happen on occasion, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the protest group.

No one's telling protesters not to protest. But they shouldn't intimidate others who'd like to go to the event.

Venue organizers must keep up with its obligation, and not be pressured by protesters to stifle free-speech.

Edited February 5, 2017 by betsy

betsy · February 5, 2017

10 minutes ago, kimmy said:

...and this will cause Terror Attacks, because of ...reasons?

-k

Not only terror attacks. Anarchists could take advantage of the situation.

A divided nation that's trying to cope with internal problems becomes more vulnerable. The possibility that its enemies will take advantage of the situation is highly likely.

You see that every time a black person was shot by the police in the USA.....certain groups infiltrate protests/rallies, and turn it violent. During the inauguration of Trump, a small hooded group infiltrated what would've been a peaceful rally against Trump, and resorted to violence.

Edited February 5, 2017 by betsy

?Impact · February 5, 2017

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

If they're shutting down or cancelling the event due to protestors - you can't!

You are confusing the right of free speech to some supposed right to hold an event; they are completely different issues. If you want to hold an event at a venue then it is the venue organizers who decide, not you. Yes, it is bad when the venue organizers want to hold the event (like the recent UC Berkley example) but decide not to because of violent interlopers. That however has absolutely nothing to do with the protestors.

betsy · February 5, 2017

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

You are confusing the right of free speech to some supposed right to hold an event; they are completely different issues. If you want to hold an event at a venue then it is the venue organizers who decide, not you. Yes, it is bad when the venue organizers want to hold the event (like the recent UC Berkley example) but decide not to because of violent interlopers. That however has absolutely nothing to do with the protestors.

If the event was already scheduled and advertised, it should go on! You don't cancel just because a group of protesters want to dictate who must and mustn't speak, and whom must and mustn't listen to!

Edited February 5, 2017 by betsy

betsy · February 5, 2017

Quote

The Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills passed by the Federalist-dominated 5th United States Congress and signed into law by President John Adams in 1798.^[1] They made it harder for an immigrant to become a citizen (Naturalization Act), allowed the president to imprison and deport non-citizens who were deemed dangerous (Alien Friends Act of 1798)^[2] or who were from a hostile nation (Alien Enemy Act of 1798),^[3] and criminalized making false statements that were critical of the federal government (Sedition Act of 1798).^[4]

The Alien Friends Act allowed the president to imprison or deport aliens considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" at any time, while the Alien Enemies Act authorized the president to do the same to any male citizen of a hostile nation above the age of fourteen during times of war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

Trump's ban is lawful!

Edited February 5, 2017 by betsy

?Impact · February 5, 2017

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

If the event was already scheduled and advertised, it should go on! You don't cancel just because a group of protesters want to dictate who must and mustn't speak, and whom must and mustn't listen to!

The cancellation of the event had absolutely nothing to do with the protestors. It was due to the safety concerns a group of interlopers caused.

betsy · February 5, 2017

Quote

The Sedition Act and the Alien Friends Act were allowed to expire in 1800 and 1801, respectively.

The Alien Enemies Act, however, remains in effect as Sections 21–24 of Title 50 of the United States Code.^[7]

In 2015, presidential candidate Donald Trump made a proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the United States (as part of the war on terror); Roosevelt's application of the Alien Enemies Act was cited as a possible justification. The proposal created international controversy, drawing criticism from foreign heads of state that have historically remained uninvolved in United States presidential elections.^[34]^[35]^[36]^[37] A former Reagan Administration aide noted that, despite criticism of Trump's proposal to invoke the law, "the Alien Enemies Act... is still on the books... (and people) in Congress for many decades (haven’t) repealed the law... (nor has) Barack Obama"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

Like it, or not......

The law is on Trump's side! What we see from these dissenting judges, are but delay tactics being practiced by progressives and liberals.

My opinion has nothing to do with bias. I'd given references that support what I'd said.

Edited February 5, 2017 by betsy

betsy · February 5, 2017

9 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The cancellation of the event had absolutely nothing to do with the protestors. It was due to the safety concerns a group of interlopers caused.

Then we too, need, law and order, don't we?

We can't just let a mob of unruly protesters become the "law" on our streets!

Edited February 5, 2017 by betsy

BubberMiley · February 5, 2017

3 hours ago, betsy said:

Yes. Because they couldn't get over losing to Trump.

And they know, Trump really does what he said he'd do.

The leftists are so incensed that they've really gone bonkers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/sarah-silverman-calls-coup-oust-donald-trump/

Know who's gone bonkers? The people defending the guy who defended the fact that Putin is a murderer by calling the U.S. murderers. One day you'll wonder just what you were thinking.

betsy · February 5, 2017

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

Know who's gone bonkers? The people defending the guy who defended the fact that Putin is a murderer by calling the U.S. murderers. One day you'll wonder just what you were thinking.

Eh? Say that again.

Who defended Putin being a murderer? Cite.

Your rant is irrelevant. It does not take away from the fact that a lot of libs have gone total bonkers - Whoopi calling for martial law, and silverman calling for a coup! They're nuts!

Edited February 5, 2017 by betsy